What are electrons? (Is why a duck?)

[steven kalb]

I’m confused by a bedrock concept of physics – the electron, but I’m not a scientist and I can’t do the math that’s necessary to clarify what I’m missing.

My understanding of the subject, such as it is, comes from popular non-fiction like Gary Zukav’s “Dancing Wu Li Masters” and Bill Bryson’s “A Short History of Nearly Everything.” As the explanations of the electron and its behavior in these texts progresses from the general to the specific, the underlying science progresses from straightforward, to arcane, to supernatural. I’ve outlined my understanding below.

There is an entity called an electron. It is an unambiguous fact that an electron is an electron. That is, even though an electron may be a conglomeration of smaller sub-particles, once those sub-particles coalesce in the one certain way necessary to create an electron, the result is an immutable entity of an established and immutable size.

But, that immutable entity can, to turn a metaphor back on its source, lead one of two different lifestyles -- domestic or independent.

Domestic electrons (d-electrons for purposes this exercise) form part of an atom – the quintessential nuclear family. d-electrons circumnavigate their nuclei, but only within specified real estate -- allowed energy states, orbitals, whatever -- in relation to their nuclei. Returning to a simpler time I’ll refer to that real estate as shells.

Independent electrons (i-electrons), on the other hand, exist independently of the nucleus of an atom. Still an i-electron is an electron, which is an immutable entity.

There are additional alternatives forms an electron can take, because depending upon how i-electrons separate from the vicinity of an atom they are referred to as different entities. One that fires from atoms residing in a negatively charged metal plate and, for one example, forms an image on a television screen, is a cathode ray. One that fires at a much higher rate of speed from an unstable atomic nucleus is beta radiation. One that is manipulated by technician to perform specific tasks is called a nanomachine. And I’m sure there are others. Still, cathode rays, beta radiation and nanomachines are all i-electrons, and since all i-electrons are electrons, they are all one and the same immutable entity. Rather like you. Whether you dress in a t-shirt and shorts, a business suit or formal evening wear, all three are still you.

Except for their multiple personality disorder, i-electrons appear to be straightforward, not unlike many familiar everyday entities – a baseball, a grape, a marble. i-electrons are particles that can travel. Scientists can track their path through gases; measure their size and mass; locate them in space; determine where they’ve been and where they’re going.

d-electrons, on the other hand, are imbued with mystical attributes.

• Are always there, but don’t exist until we measure them;

• But when we do measure them (and therefore they exist):

• they are everywhere and nowhere at the same time; and

• they can be a wave. Or they can be a particle. At the same time

• And so on until it is all presumably explained by the uncertainty principle and the square of the wave equation.

This unfortunately does not complete the personality profile of d-electrons. But boxed into a corner by the weirdness, science has left itself nowhere to turn to complete the profile but the spiritual.

• d-electrons are electrons (which are the immutable entities)

• an atom of any given element has only given number of (d-) electrons

• d-electrons can only exist within their shells, not between them

• the shell a d-electron resides in at any given moment is a function of its energy state

• (repeating) d-electrons can only exist within their shells, not between them

• so to get from one sub-shell to the next, a d-electron makes the quantum leap -- it ceases existing in one shell and simultaneously materializes in another shell, without traversing the intervening space.

And sciences explanation for this behavior? It’s the only way it can be because the universe made it that way. In other words it has to be taken on faith.

Anyone who’s read this far should sense my confusion.

Being a layman, there are a lot of scientific explanations I can’t follow or reason through. But others infinitely brighter than I have done the experiments, replicated the results, done the math, demonstrated the practical applications, and on and on, so I accept their explanations, on what amounts to an act of faith on my part. But it is an act of faith predicated on deference to their education and experience.

A perfect example, I’m still mystified by radio. The physical explanation notwithstanding, the whole concept still strikes me as nothing short of slight of hand. But it works, so I accept the explanation science provides. But I can’t accept science’s explanation of electron behavior with the same level of confidence.

I admit that I’m peering at science from a distant viewpoint and trying to bring the images into focus with a crude instrument – an untrained brain. But from my cloudly vantage point, physicists take the explanation of electrons and their behavior to a certain point with science. Then, when the science fails them (perhaps for no better reason than the unavailability of instruments powerful enough to observe the constituent parts of an atom), they stop trying to make the science work and take the leap of faith – it’s the way it is because the universe made them that way. That, to me, is not sufficient for a discipline based on mathematical expression of observable and repeatable phenomena.

Are we really to accept on faith is that d-electrons disappear from one shell and simultaneously materialize in another one nearby without traversing the space between them? Maybe they sneak through sub-atomic worm holes?

I’ve seen my twelve year old son do the same trick with a glowing plastic ball. He holds his hands at his side, rocks them back and forth, and makes the glowing ball jump from one hand to the other without navigating the two feet or so between his hands. Being true to his craft, my son would never disclose me how this particular phenomenon occurs. So I have three choices. I can take it on faith that he really made the ball disappear from one hand and simultaneously materialize in the other hand, but I prefer to believe it’s just an illusion and I don’t know how it’s done.

Accepting that transmigration is a defining characteristic of d-electrons, strikes me as more akin to the dubious reasoning Darwin Award winners employ than endorsing the explanation for why someone can talk into a steel box in one location and I can hear them by listening to a plastic box ten miles or ten thousand miles away.

And phase-shifting d-electrons are only part of the problem. Science teaches that d-electrons and i-electrons are one in the same immutable entity – electrons. But as nearly as I can tell, the only thing they electrons have in common is a negative electrical charge.

I can sum up the problem by changing nomenclature for the moment and calling i-electrons “ducks” (as in an “if it looks like a, walks like a, and quacks like a” duck). If I follow the logic of quantum physicists, they have concluded that since a d-electron looks like a goose, walks like a goose and squawks like a goose, then it probably is a - duck. (?)

Maybe the discordant theories are accepted because it doesn’t matter whether science knows what an electron is. Whatever the metaphysics, the engineering is unassailable. Science can predict with absolute certainty what will happen when d-electrons from one atom come in contact with d-electrons of another atom. Science works with and manipulates combinations of atoms and molecules on a daily basis, so the reason why what they do works many be of no more import than the solution to last week’s crossword puzzle. It’s like when the big news broke that Velociraptors evolved into ospreys, not iguanas. My first thought was: Oh, cool! My second thought was: But, so what?

Still the explanations are out there, absolute, unassailable, inviolate. If the explanations were any of a number of things – that the electron value of an atom represented not the sum of the charges of its discreet electrons but rather the aggregate charge of its electron shells; that the electron shells were the measurable evidence of the boundary of the attractive power of the positively charge nucleus; that the electron shells were a fifth force; that spins were attractive forces analogous to positive and negative electrical forces, preventing the shell from disintegrating; that when enough of the negatively charged matter comprising the shells separated it could coalesce into discreet i-electrons; that the inverse of the obtuse was the differential of the square root of the wave function – I’d shrug my shoulders and accept it.

And to do all that science and end up with like wow, man, groovy, time-traveling particles and “even thought they’re almost completely different they’re really the same”, well, it feels more like scripture than science.

So back to my original question, can someone explain to me in layman’s English what I’m missing? Or extending my duck metaphor and re-naming the d-electron a “why”, (because it acts in such unexplainable ways): Is why a duck?

 

[Andy]

So what exactly did you want to know? I doubt i could help you but someone else might be able to if you could clarify your question a bit(thats if it is a question, or maybe i just missed the question).

 

[E8]

I definitely concur. I have no idea what you're trying to ask. You sound like you know the concepts behind the Heisenberg uncertainty principle...possibly wave-particle duality, but I'm not too sure if you comprehend the relation between the electron and EM waves. Like Andy said if you keep it a little more pithy there's definitely several posters that can help you.

 

[Ace-of-Spades]

One thing I can say is that it can't be split like you implied it might be. Electrons have been given plenty of different names, because a while back people didn't realize that all these various phenomena such as [beta] -radiation etc. were to due to the electron. Yes electrons do show particle like and wave like behaviour all at the same time (duallity) - but so do all fundamental particles.
If electrons were a particle though, they would have to volume and thus no shape.

While it might be hard to get to grips with all this, no mathematical understanding is required, just simple faith and a damn good explanation that no one has been able to come up with yet

 

[chroot]

Originally posted by steven kalb
That is, even though an electron may be a conglomeration of smaller sub-particles

An electron has been demonstrated by all theory and experiment to date to be a fundamental, indivisible particle.

Domestic electrons... Independent electrons (i-electrons)

Please refrain from inventing additional, unnecessary terminology.

The reason that bound and unbound electrons behave differently is not due to any mysticism of the electron itself -- it is instead just due to the fact that the two environments are very different.

To make a not-so-useful analogy, you're familiar with the fact that free and captive animals behave quite differently. The electron behaves quite differently in different environments as well, and this just shouldn't be bewildering to you.

Quantum-mechanically, the difference between the behavior of bound and unbound electrons is a result of allowed energy states. The unbound (free) electron experiences (ideally) no interactions with anything else in the universe -- it's just moving uniformly through space. It can have any energy, any momentum, since any arbitrary observer can have any arbitrary relative velocity with respect to it. It has no rules to follow in regards to its energy.

When the electron -- the very same one -- approaches a nucleus, the rules begin to change. The electron enters a potential -- it feels forces due to the positive charge of the nucleus. The end result is that the electron is no longer able to have any energy; it is only able to have specific (discrete) energies. Thus the electron shells are built around the nucleus. This behavior is not specific to electrons around nuclei either -- bound states of any system have discrete allowed energies. It is a fundamental feature of the universe.

One that is manipulated by technician to perform specific tasks is called a nanomachine.

I don't think anyone has ever called an electron a nanomachine.

d-electrons, on the other hand, are imbued with mystical attributes.

• Are always there, but don’t exist until we measure them;

• But when we do measure them (and therefore they exist):

• they are everywhere and nowhere at the same time; and

• they can be a wave. Or they can be a particle. At the same time

• And so on until it is all presumably explained by the uncertainty principle and the square of the wave equation.

The misconceptions abound. Electrons do not cease to exist unless measured (and in fact I have no idea how you arrived at this misconception). What you're trying to say that they do not have definite properties. If you prepare 1000 electrons in the same state, and then make a measurement on each of them, you will not get 1000 identical answers. Electrons are not everywhere and nowhere at the same time. Every measurement of an electron's position will result in a specific ("crisp") result. However, if you measure it several times, you won't always get the same result. The wave-particle duality picture is one that I wish people would leave behind. In the microscopic world, there are no waves, nor any particles. There is, instead, only one thing, but it exists only in the microscopic world. We can describe the thing with macroscopic wave concepts sometimes, and with macroscopic particle concepts other times -- but the microscopic things are just not like the macroscopic things we'd like to use as analogies, and there is no way around it.

• d-electrons are electrons (which are the immutable entities)

• an atom of any given element has only given number of (d-) electrons

• d-electrons can only exist within their shells, not between them

• the shell a d-electron resides in at any given moment is a function of its energy state

• (repeating) d-electrons can only exist within their shells, not between them

• so to get from one sub-shell to the next, a d-electron makes the quantum leap -- it ceases existing in one shell and simultaneously materializes in another shell, without traversing the intervening space.

More misconceptions. Electrons can exist anywhere. Any electron in any shell could potentially be anywhere anytime you measure it. Anywhere in the universe. The likelihood of it being in the next galaxy over, however, is vanishingly small -- it is extremely likely that it will be found within the boundaries of a small region (orbital) around its nucleus. I have no idea what a "function of its energy state" even means, so I cannot comment. The penultimate point you made, that "electrons can only exist within their shells, not between them," however, is patently wrong in every possible sense. The ultimate point, that electrons have to somehow teleport from shell to shell is equally patently, disgustingly wrong. The probability densities do not fall to zero outside the shell. The shell has no boundary. You could define the boundary as the 99% confidence region, but to include 100% confidence, you'd have to include the entire universe. The probability densities overlap. The electron in one shell has a finite, non-zero probability of being measured in another shell. The electron is able to move between shells.

And sciences explanation for this behavior? It’s the only way it can be because the universe made it that way. In other words it has to be taken on faith.

The only 'faith' one needs is in the axioms of a theory. Quantum mechanics has only a few postulates that deal only with how one mathematically represents a system. Your favorite points of confusion -- the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, for example -- are not axioms, they are derived from the axioms.

But it is an act of faith predicated on deference to their education and experience... But I can’t accept science’s explanation of electron behavior with the same level of confidence.

Quit your *****ing and buy a textbook.

Then, when the science fails them (perhaps for no better reason than the unavailability of instruments powerful enough to observe the constituent parts of an atom), they stop trying to make the science work and take the leap of faith.

How can you even expect these kinds of comments to receive anything in response apart from laughter and derision? You have no idea how science works -- a fact that you've made clear several times now. So why do you feel you understand scientists well enough to make these kinds of statements? I have no idea what it's like to be a surgeon. I therefore refrain from making comments about how surgeons think. It is offensive that you seem to think you know how I think. It just makes you look stupid.

Are we really to accept on faith is that d-electrons disappear from one shell and simultaneously materialize in another one nearby without traversing the space between them?

Of course not -- and if you had even a passing knowledge of any of the concepts you think you understand, you'd realize it.

You are perhaps one of the worst cocktail-party physicists I've ever heard. You are the result of a long history of reading crap paperbook "science" books. You know some of the buzzwords, some of the concepts, and some of the bits that give students problems. However, you don't seem to recognize how pathetically ill-equipped you are to do anything but talk to other pathetically ill-equipped people around a punch bowl.

You now have a choice. The answers you seek are out there. You CAN understand quantum mechanics. However, the answers are not in paperback NY Times bestsellers -- they do nothing but distort the truth in order to package it in English prose. Go buy some textbooks -- we can recommend which are good starting points for your level of mathematical ability -- and teach yourself the goddamn theory. Until then, do not even attempt to tell us scientists that "we stop trying to make science work."

- Warren

 

[Ace-of-Spades]

Hey Warren...
Take it easy tiger!
The guy just wants to learn something new.
He's only as baffled as we all were when we
first learned about all this stuff!

 

[arcnets]

(Quote from the original post)

Science can predict with absolute certainty [...]

If your book is based on this statement, then I think it's not a very realistic book. As far as I understand, 'absolute certainty' is not a concept used in science.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Ace-of-Spades
Hey Warren...
Take it easy tiger!
The guy just wants to learn something new.
He's only as baffled as we all were when we
first learned about all this stuff!

I doubt that. It looks more like a post-and-run wacked out pseudo-scientific theory to me. The goal isn't to learn, but to spread his idea and possibly (if he comes back) to hock his website or book.

 

[Ace-of-Spades]

lol
Man you guys are paranoid!

If you're not skeptical about the things youve been
taught, how do you ever hope to come up with new ideas?

"Given enough time, anyone can come to understand physical
principals, but it takes an imaginative mind to invent new
ones" - A famous quote by Steven Sterley

 

[Adam]

Chroot

Originally posted by chroot

In the microscopic world, there are no waves, nor any particles. There is, instead, only one thing[/color], but it exists only in the microscopic world. We can describe the thing with macroscopic wave concepts sometimes, and with macroscopic particle concepts other times -- but the microscopic things are just not like the macroscopic things we'd like to use as analogies, and there is no way around it.

Could you please go into more detail about that "one thing"?

 

[Tyger]

If we measure this guy's theory

do you think it will disappear?

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Ace-of-Spades
lol
Man you guys are paranoid!

If you're not skeptical about the things youve been
taught, how do you ever hope to come up with new ideas?

Not paranoid, just cynical.

 

[steven kalb]

What is an electron

For Andy and E8, maybe my initial post is long winded and flip, but all I’m looking for is a comprehensible explanation for two concepts: free electrons and electrons that are the constituent part of atoms are one and the same; and when an electron becomes a part of, for example, a Beryllium atom it is one of 4 discrete entities, each identical to a free electron, orbiting (or whatever electrons do) in relation to the nucleus of that atom.

The problem I see is summed up by Ace of Spades (While it might be hard to get to grips with all this, no mathematical understanding is required, just simple faith and a damn good explanation that no one has been able to come up with yet”) and for all his anger, Warren (“There is, instead, only one thing, but it exists only in the microscopic world. We can describe the thing with macroscopic wave concepts sometimes, and with macroscopic particle concepts other times -- but the microscopic things are just not like the macroscopic things we'd like to use as analogies, and there is no way around it.”)

Axiomatic statements like these seem to me to be too much like the faithful preaching gospel. Patently neither is correct. There are explanations other than faith, and there are ways around the gaps in our knowledge, but humans don’t (and may never) possesses the technology to discern them.

Technology never stops evolving and with new technology comes new understanding. For one example, Warren says “An electron has been demonstrated by all theory and experiment to date to be a fundamental, indivisible particle,” but (again only from popular sources) I’ve been led to believe that the building blocks of the universe are not protons, neutrons and electrons, but ever expanding menu of sub-atomic particles -- muons, pioons, hyoperons, mesons, leptons, and so on.

What I suppose I’m looking for is leads to cutting edge thought by legitimate physicists that goes beyond present orthodoxy. Not that present orthodoxy won’t in the end prove to be correct, but are there any new theories in the canon to prove (or disprove) it?

 

[neutroncount]

leptons = electrons and corresponding neutrinos
Quarks and leptons are the fundamentals.
Quarks make up baryons and mesons.

Something to remember.

 

[Arc_Central]

Wow! Warren must have an electron stuck where the sun don't shine. Now I know where the term Mad Scientist came from.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that Steven Kalb is out fishing for whatever bites. Even a Mad Scientist could come to grips with this, or maybe I'm wrong about the Mad Scientist.

I do have a few question regarding the electron in regards to it's particle wave duality.

When is an electron a particle?
When is an electron a wave?
Is an electron a particle and a wave at the same time?
Does an electron move at C at all times?

 

[neutroncount]

Originally posted by Arc_Central
Wow! Warren must have an electron stuck where the sun don't shine. Now I know where the term Mad Scientist came from.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that Steven Kalb is out fishing for whatever bites. Even a Mad Scientist could come to grips with this, or maybe I'm wrong about the Mad Scientist.

I do have a few question regarding the electron in regards to it's particle wave duality.

When is an electron a particle?
When is an electron a wave?
Is an electron a particle and a wave at the same time?
Does an electron move at C at all times?

Well I CAN answer the last one with high certainty. Electrons don't move at c. They have mass and therefore cannot. In fact in a wire, electrons hardly move at all. They slowly migrate down, let's say, a copper wire due to resistance. They can be accelerated to near the speed of light but that is about it.

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by steven kalb
Axiomatic statements like these seem to me to be too much like the faithful preaching gospel.

No.

The theories we have are tested. The statements that make their way to physics textbooks are the ones that survived after the bad theories had been falsified by experiment.

I’ve been led to believe that the building blocks of the universe are not protons, neutrons and electrons, but ever expanding menu of sub-atomic particles -- muons, pioons, hyoperons, mesons, leptons, and so on.

No.

In the Standard Model, the building blocks of the universe are quarks and leptons. The pions, hyperons and mesons are all composed of quarks.

What I suppose I’m looking for is leads to cutting edge thought by legitimate physicists that goes beyond present orthodoxy. Not that present orthodoxy won’t in the end prove to be correct, but are there any new theories in the canon to prove (or disprove) it?

What you are looking for then is some information on String Theory, which is out to replace the Standard Model (which is a union of two quantum field theories, electroweak and QCD).

 

[selfAdjoint]

An electron will appear to you as a wave if you do an experiment that depends on its wave properties (such as two slit interference). It will appear as a particle when you do an experiment that depends on its particle properties (such as deep inelastic scattering).

There is a princple of physics (like an axiom) called the Complementarity Principle that says you can't do an experiment that really truly evokes both properties at the same time.

Maybe you don't like an explanation in terms of experiments people do? That's the way quantum mechanics (and relativity) describe the world. You won't get any "deeper" answer.

 

[Andy]

For Andy and E8, maybe my initial post is long winded and flip, but all I’m looking for is a comprehensible explanation for two concepts:

Ha, its about time someone recognised my intelligence! Bit obvious that your new hear because if you had been hear any length of time you would realize that i have a very limited knowledge of physics relative to many of the others that use this forum.

 

[Arc_Central]

Self ajoint

{{{{An electron will appear to you as a wave if you do an experiment that depends on its wave properties (such as two slit interference).}}}

You can do a slit experiment with electrons and it will work like the photons do?

neutroncount

{{{Well I CAN answer the last one with high certainty. Electrons don't move at c. They have mass and therefore cannot. In fact in a wire, electrons hardly move at all. They slowly migrate down, let's say, a copper wire due to resistance. They can be accelerated to near the speed of light but that is about it.}}}

But while they are slowly migrating down the wire are they not also revolving around a nucleus at or near C? If you could place an elctron by whatever means in the dead of space - Could it just sit there, or would it be moving at or near the speed of C?

 

[brum]

Originally posted by Arc_Central

But while they are slowly migrating down the wire are they not also revolving around a nucleus at or near C?

Correct me if I'm wrong.

In a metal, such as the copper in the wire, electrons (the stream of which being electricity) that flow along the copper wire are NOT directly orbitting anyone nucleus.

They are part of something called a "sea of electrons" -- the outer couple of electrons are not bound to anyone nucleus, but rather ALL of the nucleui. In this way, the electrons are free to move about and can flow (electricity!)

In this way, electrons do NOT travel at c


===========

diagrams...


http://207.10.97.102/chemzone/lessons/03bonding/mleebonding/metallicbonding.htm

-and-

http://www.uis.edu/~trammell/MaterialsScience/bands/sld004.htm

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Arc_Central
You can do a slit experiment with electrons and it will work like the photons do?

Yes. In fact, every particle has its own associated probibility of doing the same thing. Imagine you have two windows sitting next to each other. If you jump out of one, there is a small (extrordinarily small) but real probibility that you will go out the other one instead. Freaky, huh?

But while they are slowly migrating down the wire are they not also revolving around a nucleus at or near C? If you could place an elctron by whatever means in the dead of space - Could it just sit there, or would it be moving at or near the speed of C?

Correct me if I'm wrong.

In a metal, such as the copper in the wire, electrons (the stream of which being electricity) that flow along the copper wire are NOT directly orbitting anyone nucleus.

They are part of something called a "sea of electrons" -- the outer couple of electrons are not bound to anyone nucleus, but rather ALL of the nucleui. In this way, the electrons are free to move about and can flow (electricity!)

In this way, electrons do NOT travel at c

Yes, but more to the point, electrons around an atom don't "orbit." The term "orbit" is a misnomer from before electron behavior was understood and the term has stuck. They are better considered to be part of an electron "cloud" which is nothing more than a probilbility function for where you might find an electron at any given time. When "orbiting" an atomic nucleus, they can't really be said to be moving at all in the Newtonian sense. Ie, the question 'what is the velocity of an electron orbiting an atom?' has no meaning. Its not unanswerable, its just an invalid question.

 

[steven kalb]

What are electrons (Is why a duck?)

Now we’re getting somewhere.

An unbound electron acts in certain ways – it can move about and flow and radiate and whatever. And (correct me if I’m wrong) an unbound electron is a particle

An electron bound by a nucleus acts in a completely different way. It seems it doesn’t act at all.

______________________________________________________________
Post by russ_watters

Yes, but more to the point, electrons around an atom don't "orbit." The term "orbit" is a misnomer from before electron behavior was understood and the term has stuck. They are better considered to be part of an electron "cloud" which is nothing more than a probilbility function for where you might find an electron at any given time. When "orbiting" an atomic nucleus, they can't really be said to be moving at all in the Newtonian sense. Ie, the question 'what is the velocity of an electron orbiting an atom?' has no meaning. Its not unanswerable, its just an invalid question.

It seems they only make appearances if, and depending on how, a researcher measures them.

__________________________________________________________________
Post by selfAdjoint

An electron will appear to you as a wave if you do an experiment that depends on its wave properties (such as two slit interference). It will appear as a particle when you do an experiment that depends on its particle properties (such as deep inelastic scattering. ______________________________________________________________

This takes me back to my original question, which I can now state in a different fashion – as a series of questions.

Are the entities identified as unbound electrons and the entities identified as bound electrons the same entities?

Is the cloud around a, say, Beryllium nucleus really composed of four discrete electrons that have no velocity (that means they’re not moving, no?)? Or is it possible that cloud is four electrons worth of quarks and leptons (or some intermediate particles)?

I don’t want to be a broken record, but from the outside peering in it looks like this: The technology isn’t powerful enough to definitively explain electron behavior in the presence of atomic nuclei. So the science takes things as far as the technology allows and then turns to scripture.

__________________________________________________________
Post by selfAdjoint
There is a princple of physics (like an axiom) called the Complementarity Principle that says you can't do an experiment that really truly evokes both properties at the same time.

Maybe you don't like an explanation in terms of experiments people do? That's the way quantum mechanics (and relativity) describe the world. You won't get any "deeper" answer.
________________________________________________________________

I’m just too skeptical to accept any gospel, whether it’s writ by the priests or the physicists.

If String Theory will enlighten me, can anyone recommend an explanation accessible to laymen, on the order of “A Brief History of Time.”?

 

[E8]

A lot of people like 'The Elegant Universe' by Brian Greene.

When you talk about i-electrons and d-electrons I'm wondering if your talking about the difference between valence electrons and inner-shell electrons or maybe should be focused on that more. I just don't get your interest in the former unless I'm missing something. I have never heard anybody use that terminology when referring to electrons until now.

FYI, bound electrons may or may not 'act.' The outer-shell electrons (valence e-) are involved in bonding, they're characteristics are very well studied and carry a lot weight around in chemistry (periodic table?!). You can't really just say bound and unbound since bound has an important subdivision in itself outer and inner electrons that people spend their lives studying.

Bound electrons do radiate, it is their vibrations that emit and absorb radiation.

 

[jcsd]

E8 I think he means i-electrons= free electron, whereas d-electrons equal electrons orbiting around a specific nucleus.

 

[chroot]

Once again Stephen Kalb, the best advice I have to give you is "Quit your *****ing, and buy a textbook." Many of the questions you ask can be answered by your own pencil on your own paper. The reason no one here is willing to descend deep into the mathematical jungle is because, simply, you won't understand it anyway.

Physics cannot be accurately described in English prose -- it's an inescapable problem. Generations of people have been reared thinking that reading a Hawking paperback is a sort of physics education, but it is sadly not. The concepts and conclusions of a theory as complex as quantum mechanics appear rather arbitrary and unfounded when written in prose. The different conclusions indeed seem disconnected and illogical. It is impossible to make this better by writing more, or higher quality prose -- prose is inherently limited, and just cannot achieve the precision and mutability necessary to work with a physical theory. You cannot do physics in words. The only way you'll be able to learn what you wish to learn is to begin working with the mathematical tools themselves. You will see at once how electrons behave differently in potential fields than they do in the abscence of a potential. You will not need to write pages of plaintive prose, nor read pages of admonishment in return. You will understand immediately how a potential field induces a quantization of energy levels. You, like many others, may find quantum mechanics beautiful in that you can derive so much from so little.

- Warren

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by steven kalb
Now we’re getting somewhere... Is the cloud around a, say, Beryllium nucleus really composed of four discrete electrons that have no velocity (that means they’re not moving, no?)?

No, I said they have no DEFINABLE velocity in the Newtonian sense. They are most certainly moving. In order to define a velocity, you have to take two exact snapshots of its position at two different times. Since electrons are small, this is impossible. The timeframe you'd need to be working in is shorter than Planck time (not positive about that one though). And this is where quantum mechanics gets so bizarre (and cool).

I don’t want to be a broken record, but from the outside peering in it looks like this: The technology isn’t powerful enough to definitively explain electron behavior in the presence of atomic nuclei. So the science takes things as far as the technology allows and then turns to scripture.

This has nothing to do with technology and there is no such thing as "gosphel" or "scripture" in science. Science does not deal in faith or belief. These are THEORETICAL issues, not ENGINEERING issues and its extremely important to understand the difference.

Example: People often compare the sound barrier to the "warp barrier." But that's wrong. The sound barrier was always an engineering one - once technology got good enough we could break it and physicists and engineers knew it. But the "warp barrier" is a theoretical one, ie according to the laws of the universe as we know them, it is not possible nor will it ever be possible to break it.

Similarly, we can't define a real position and speed (orbit) for an electron because there isn't one. Its not because we don't have the technology to see it.

 

[Arc_Central]

Chroot

Physics cannot be accurately described in English prose

That's complete and utter BS.

 

[chroot]

Originally posted by Arc_Central
That's complete and utter BS.

You obviously don't know much physics. How's the Hawking coming?

- Warren

 

[Arc_Central]

I don't consider Hawking to be very good at explaining reality. It would seem by your own words that you are totally incapable. Essentially saying that it is even tougher than the math associated with physics.

I say that's a load of crap - BS wrapped around a hand grenade. I don't need math to understand you will end up with that line of garbage all over yer face. All you got to do is pull yer safety pin - The math you hide behind.

That's my physics lesson for today in ordinary language. I'm sure everyone understood the explosive nature of my comments in physical terms.

 

[chroot]

I'm sure somewhere in that post you intended to insert a reasoned, logical argument... didn't you?

The simple fact is that I know the math -- and I know from a great deal of experience that it's next to impossible to try to explain math with prose and achieve anything but confusion. Many other people (all of whom also know the math) would agree.

It's funny that you intimate that you don't know math -- yet you're quite sure it's unnecessary to explain physical models. What makes you so sure? What reason do you have to be sure that something you don't know isn't important?

There's a reason physicists work with mathematical models rather than English prose models -- and it's not because it provides job security.

- Warren

 

[Andy]

I agree with Warren, I know sod all about maths and therefore struggle with my ability to work out physics, i feel that i have good knowledge about physics relative to the average person but as soon as any hard maths gets involved and let's face it there is a lot of very hard and complicated maths in physics i get lost. If you think Physics is easy and that you don't need maths to work it out your obviously not as smart as you would like to think you are.

 

[Arc_Central]

It's funny that you intimate that you don't know math -- yet you're quite sure it's unnecessary to explain physical models. What makes you so sure?

Because I was born and still live (last I saw) in that physical model. We all have a lifetime worth of experience in that model. Do I need to spell it out to you without numbers?

Are you to say you have left the playing field of geometry entirely? I.E. Visual percepts as the basis of reason?
Or are you incapable of transferring, in words, your personal understanding of basic concepts?

I know from a great deal of experience that it's next to impossible to try to explain math with prose and achieve anything but confusion.

Nobody is asking you to explain the math in words. In fact almost nobody is expecting the math. This is a message board where but less than a handfull have the experience you have with math. What use are you to me, or anyone else if you can't translate into words your mathematical description? You may as well be talking to a wall. Which begs the question - Why are you here at all? You might get more showing your equations to a dog. My personal opinion is that you come here because you like being the big fish in a small pond - As opposed to a small fish in the big ocean.

 

[chroot]

Originally posted by Arc_Central
Because I was born and still live (last I saw) in that physical model. We all have a lifetime worth of experience in that model. Do I need to spell it out to you without numbers?

You have a lifetime worth of experience of how electrons behave in and out of potential barriers, such as that around a nucleus? Wow! You must be very, very small indeed!

Are you to say you have left the playing field of geometry entirely? I.E. Visual percepts as the basis of reason?

I don't know what a 'visual percept' is or how it or geometry relate to the behavior of electrons around nuclei -- but it's certainly true they don't behave in any way that we'd come expect by our 'lifetimes worth of experience.'

Nobody is asking you to explain the math in words.

This is, in fact, exactly what stephen kalb has asked us to do.

What use are you to me, or anyone else if you can't translate into words your mathematical description?

That's quite a double standard you have there -- it's my fault that quantum mechanics is extraordinarily difficult to express in English, while it's entirely okay that you refuse to learn math. I have to struggle to use language you can understand, but it's not okay for me to suggest you learn a better language?

Why are you here at all?

A number of reasons. 1) I have helped many people surmount their stumbling blocks. 2) Teaching others encourages me to review and hone my skills in various subjects. 3) It's fun to fight the mainstream Hawkingesque idiocy that pollutes the minds of most laymen.

- Warren

 

[Arc_Central]

I don't know what a 'visual percept' is or how it or geometry relate to the behavior of electrons around nuclei -- but it's certainly true they don't behave in any way that we'd come expect by our 'lifetimes worth of experience.'

A percept is a sense or impression of an object. The word visual in front of the word percept should give you a birds eye view of what I am talking about.

I am now starting to believe you Warren. You are terrible at putting into words, an explanation of anything without the use of mathematical equations. I'm sorry I brought it up. You best keep this part of your life a secret.

That's quite a double standard you have there -- it's my fault that quantum mechanics is extraordinarily difficult to express in English, while it's entirely okay that you refuse to learn math. I have to struggle to use language you can understand, but it's not okay for me to suggest you learn a better language?

Well Warren - If you have ever received a government check. I have every right to expect you to struggle to use language I understand, and yes Warren it's not ok for you to suggest that I go learn the math. But it's ok Warren - I have come to understand that you are a dunce when it comes to putting in simple english...the overall gist of the equations you hold so deeply to your chest.

 

[chroot]

Originally posted by Arc_Central
I am now starting to believe you Warren. You are terrible at putting into words, an explanation of anything without the use of mathematical equations. I'm sorry I brought it up. You best keep this part of your life a secret.

You seem to be drawing this conclusion in the complete absence of evidence. In another thread in which you attacked me earlier:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=49284#post49284

I went ahead and gave several examples.

Well Warren - If you have ever received a government check. I have every right to expect you to struggle to use language I understand, and yes Warren it's not ok for you to suggest that I go learn the math.

What's a government check have to do with anything? And I want to know WHY, moron, I should have to use your language, rather than you mine. What do you think I owe you? You're welcome to remain in the trenches of your own ignorance as long as you'd like.

You need to realize the reason people like stephen kalb get so confused in the first place is precisely because English prose is a terrible vehicle for explaining a physical theory.

- Warren

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by Arc_Central
Well Warren - If you have ever received a government check. I have every right to expect you to struggle to use language I understand, and yes Warren it's not ok for you to suggest that I go learn the math.

The student should not tell the teacher how to teach, government check or no. If someone who is knowledgeable in physics tells you that mathematical knowledge is required to put all this stuff together, then that's what you have to do. I taught physics at the university level for 4 years, and there's simply no way to do it without using math. Quantitative problems require a quantitative language. If you don't like that, then physics isn't the field for you.

But it's ok Warren - I have come to understand that you are a dunce when it comes to putting in simple english...the overall gist of the equations you hold so deeply to your chest.

You're making a complete idiot of yourself, do you realize that? You keep saying that Warren is hiding behind mathematics, but what is really happening is that you are hiding behind your own ignorance.

But that's OK, if you want to keep groping around in the dark I won't stop you.

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by steven kalb
An unbound electron acts in certain ways – it can move about and flow and radiate and whatever. And (correct me if I’m wrong) an unbound electron is a particle

Yes.

An electron bound by a nucleus acts in a completely different way. It seems it doesn’t act at all.

No, an electron in an atom is described by the same equation as a free electron.

Are the entities identified as unbound electrons and the entities identified as bound electrons the same entities?

Yes.

Is the cloud around a, say, Beryllium nucleus really composed of four discrete electrons that have no velocity (that means they’re not moving, no?)? Or is it possible that cloud is four electrons worth of quarks and leptons (or some intermediate particles)?

It's better to speak of the energy of an electron rather than the velocity, because the latter carries with it the connotation of a definite trajectory. As far as the "quarks and leptons" bit goes no, it is not possible that quarks are really orbiting the nucleus. Since electrons are leptons, I say yes to that by default.

I don’t want to be a broken record, but from the outside peering in it looks like this: The technology isn’t powerful enough to definitively explain electron behavior in the presence of atomic nuclei. So the science takes things as far as the technology allows and then turns to scripture.

If that's how it looks to you, then you are peering through some very muddy windows. Atomic phenomena are extremely well understood, both theoretically and experimentally.

I’m just too skeptical to accept any gospel, whether it’s writ by the priests or the physicists.

No gospel here. Quantum mechanics is precisely formulated, and it is well tested. Because of that, it is an accurate description of the way matter behaves. No more, no less.

If String Theory will enlighten me, can anyone recommend an explanation accessible to laymen, on the order of “A Brief History of Time.”?

I say: Forget string theory for now.

You clearly need to grasp the basics to get on the road to enlightenment, because you do not even know that humble, nonrelativistic quantum mechanics describes atomic phenomena very well, with no need for fudge factors or "gospel". The gaps are not in our theories, they are in your knowledge.

 

[Arc_Central]

The student should not tell the teacher how to teach, government check or no. If someone who is knowledgeable in physics tells you that mathematical knowledge is required to put all this stuff together, then that's what you have to do. I taught physics at the university level for 4 years, and there's simply no way to do it without using math. Quantitative problems require a quantitative language. If you don't like that, then physics isn't the field for you.

Since I'm through with Warren.


For starters - I'm not a student. Just curious about the world we live in. If you can't explain (stuff) on the quantum level with plain ole words - Then you are of no use to me either when it comes to understanding it. I have found plenty of sites on the web that at least try to explain. Some are better than others. I learned something today (no numbers required) on the quantum level. Probably something you would apparently swear needed 4 years or more of intense number crunching. I'll say the same thing to you as I did to Warren. Your statement that higher math is an absolute requirement to understanding this (STUFF) is pure BS.

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by Arc_Central
Since I'm through with Warren.

Since you're through with Warren, you're going to give the same naive speech to me?

For starters - I'm not a student.

That's too bad. I'll be a student till the day I die, and I'm looking forward to every minute of it.

Just curious about the world we live in. If you can't explain (stuff) on the quantum level with plain ole words - Then you are of no use to me either when it comes to understanding it.

I'd be of plenty of use to you if you were open to learning.

I have found plenty of sites on the web that at least try to explain. Some are better than others.

I so love it when people make my point for me.

Arc, how would you know that some are better than others[/color]? To what do you compare these websites? The fact is, the only way to judge them is to compare them to the thing they are trying to explain, which is the theory itself.

I learned something today (no numbers required) on the quantum level.
Probably something you would apparently swear needed 4 years or more of intense number crunching.

That would depend on what it was you think you learned. But again, you make my point for me. How do you know that you understood it properly? How do you know the author didn't make a mistake? The answer is obvious: You don't know. Now if you learned the theory from scratch, you could derive the results and compare them to the "English translation" to see if--and even more importantly--to what extent the prosaic version corresponds to the real thing.

Sorry, but you're still in the dark, and your attitude isn't doing you any good.

I'll say the same thing to you as I did to Warren. Your statement that higher math is an absolute requirement to understanding this (STUFF) is pure BS.

And I'll say the same thing I already said to you, since you ignored it the first time:

Quantitative problems require a quantitative language. If you don't like that, then physics isn't the field for you.

This thread started out with a question that reflects some severe misconceptions about what quantum mechanics does and does not say, as well as some factual errors held by the original poster. That sort of thing requires qualified instruction from people who know the subject well. Since you have nothing to offer in that regard, how about letting those knowledgeable people who are good enough to spend their efforts on this do their job without your innane heckling?

 

[Arc_Central]

That's too bad. I'll be a student till the day I die, and I'm looking forward to every minute of it.

Nice comeback! Now yer talkin.

Arc, how would you know that some are better than others? To what do you compare these websites? The fact is, the only way to judge them is to compare them to the thing they are trying to explain, which is the theory itself.

I can only assume that if I visit say 10 sites on a subject...that there will be at least some form of general consensus. For the most part - I consider this agreement to be true. From this - I can build on a brick by brick basis.

 

[ahrkron]

Originally posted by Arc_Central
I can only assume that if I visit say 10 sites on a subject...that there will be at least some form of general consensus.

There are many problems with this.

1. How do you know you are sampling correctly? There are plenty of crappy sites on the net (especially about QM). How would you distinguish a marginally good one from a failed attempt (even if made with good intentions). The "consensus" you mention can be out from all the wrong sites.

2. Have you ever read a poem to a friend, and then exchange impressions? She may have found amazing precisely the line that you judged useless. When interpreting language, it is not only the intent of the writer that plays. Your own past experiences, your expectations and the peculiar associations you have assigned to each word are also on play. Big time.

3. Despite the impression left by many popularization books, QM involves many complex relationships and very subtle distinctions. Putting it into few[/color] words necessarily looses much of the meaning.

I emphasized "few" for the following reason, which is probably close to what you are thinking about:

In principle[/color], yes, all math can be put into words. Words are our way to communicate, and we do teach math using words.

HOWEVER, how many words do you need to describe Pythagoras' theorem? to describe a straight line? to reason your way from the description of gravitational attraction to obtaining the speed of the International Space Station right now?

You can surely see how these decriptions can become extremely long, while math abbreviates them big time, reducing at the same time the chances for mistakes.

Actually, the mathematical description of a phenomenon is precisely[/color] the minimum expression of such! It has already taken out all unneeded information, and deals only with the absolutely essential pieces of data we need.

English can be used instead of math, indeed, but then you either:
1. Get an accurate but enormous word-description of things, as incomprehensible as the "math-version" to a math-layman, or
2. Reduce the description to an "intelligible" one, which can be put in much less phrases, at the cost of loosing all the rest of the structure.

There's no way out.

The "brick by brick" basis you mention is based on incomplete bricks, devoided of most of their structure.

Finally, remember that, in dealing with QM, you're not only trying to describe interactions that are far from your everyday perceptual experience, but also a theory that needs to make use of (i.e. whose absolute minimum description requires) mathematical structures far more complicated than those I used as examples.

 

[Arc_Central]

There are many problems with this.

Didn't say there weren't problems with that method. If all I use are web sites (including this one), and maybe a few books. All I can do is sift through everything, and make some kind of conclusion. Can I get it wrong? - You bet I can. Do I get it wrong? - I do. But everytime I find something wrong with my interpretations - I'm actually getting it right...eventually. I have no problem with this.

The "brick by brick" basis you mention is based on incomplete bricks, devoided of most of their structure.

You may see it that way, but it's still a palace to me. I'll likely have a patchy lawn to go with it too, and who knows ...maybe I'll void the bricks and build my universe without them. Sort of a universe without matter. Who woulda thought? What a concept!

Finally, remember that, in dealing with QM, you're not only trying to describe interactions that are far from your everyday perceptual experience, but also a theory that needs to make use of (i.e. whose absolute minimum description requires) mathematical structures far more complicated than those I used as examples.

Many of you guys speak from positions that absolutely require you to put the numbers up. I don't have that position, and I'm not looking to take yer spot. I will not dispute that the math is very complex, and I sympathize with you for what it took in your understanding of it. I have no intention of climbing that wall. There is no reason that a math equation can't be descibed on a perceptual basis, and if it can't - There are no numbers possible...for the entirety of math is a representation of perception.

 

[Adam]

As an engineering student, I find myself getting stuck into maths and physics a little now and then. However, my field is computer engineering. It's very light on the physics. Apart from some littlle bits and pieces to explain the stuff I'm studying, mostly the physics is just a hobby for me. I like to learn a bit in my free time. Also I'm crap at maths, having avoided it almost entirely at school and only gone into higher education after quitting the navy. I expect I would be good at maths if I studied it properly, but as yet I haven't had the time and training. Anyway, I find that maths alone describes the things I am trying to learn, although phrasing it in English in different ways often helps me get my head around a concept. English often assists, but truly understanding the details reqires seeing what is happening in a mathematical way.

Personally I find Chroot an objectionable individual, but he is far more advanced in his studies than I am, and I consider him quite correct about it being impossible to accurately describe physics in English. I also find reading Chroot's posts (when he remains on topic and is not being said objectionable individual) quite enlightening.

Well, that's all really. From my own 2nd year student point of view, I find that things must be described in terms of pure maths for true comprehension.

 

[chroot]

Hey, I'm "objectionable!"

Oh well, I've been called far worse.

- Warren

 

[Albrecht]

I read the threat of Steven Kalb the first time today and I do understand his confusion.

This confusion about the electron (and the elementary particles in general) has a lot to do with the historical development of particle physics. And this confusion was always a good fertiliser to the development of quantum mechanics.

Lets start from the beginning when it was much less complicated. Louis de Broglie stated in 1923 that an elementary particle is built by constituents which orbit each other. This causes an alternating field around them which is the origin of the (seeming) wave behaviour. So also its scattering at a double slit.
De Broglie received the Nobel price in 1929 for this approach. - So, according to de Broglie the electron is a particle and not a wave, but it sometimes looks like a wave.

The discrete energy levels of an electron were also explained by him: When an electron has surrounded the nucleon in the atom it has to meet the alternating field of it's previous orbit in the correct phase. This limits strongly the possible frequencies and so it's energy levels.

In the Dirac equation of the electron (1928) it was stated that the constituent(s) of an electron orbit permanently with the speed of light. (Dirac also received the Nobel price). If this is assumed the constituent(s) of the electron must have no mass, otherwise this would contradict relativity. And there must be (at least) two constituents, otherwise there would be a permanent contradiction to the momentum law.

If it is assumed that the constituents of the electron have no mass and there are exactly 2 of them, then there is no contradiction to the experimental situation. I have worked for a big accelerator and I know the experiments made with the electron, and I discussed this point with a research director of that accelerator: There is in fact no contradiction to this assumption of 2 mass-less constituents. The reason for the different conclusion is the fact that the physicists always assume that a constituent must have a mass. This is a wrong and unnecessary assumption.

If you understand the electron in this way you can understand a lot of what is normally assumed to be only understandable by quantum mechanics: e.g. also it's magnetic momentum and it's constant spin.

 

[McQueen]

On Demagoguery in general

I would like to call your attention to the following remarks made by Luddendorf at a famous historical event: "By appointing Hitler Chancellor of the Reich you have handed over our sacred German Fatherland to one of the greatest demagogues of all time. I prophesy to you this evil man will plunge our Reich into the abyss and will inflict immeasurable woe on our nation. Future generations will curse you in your grave for this action."
For those of you who profess ignorance , a demagogue is one of those persons who belong to the school of I am right you are wrong kind. Demagoguery can not only be unpleasant it can also be dangerous. Standing here on the side lines I have seen certain members of this forum use every possible subversive and underhanded tactic to undermine the position taken by Steve. These tactics have included derogatory remarks on his taste in reading , although the books he has quoted have been written by some of the finest scientific minds of the day, casting aspersions on his intelligence and his mental abilities and demeaning any people who would wish to support him. The worst part in all of this was that all these tactics were cloaked in an aura of self righteousness. The purpose of any forum is to encourage constructive criticism , not to brow beat and bully any and everyone who happens to take a different point of view. I give credence to the fact that Steve has taken a valid stand which I believe has merit and needs to be discussed. Steve’s point of view is that the science of physics seems to be getting too arcane in its outlook and has lost some of the cohesion that it at one time was famous for. There is a lot of truth in this . Traditionally physicists have been the guys who get out the tape measure and start to measure , sure they naturally have to use a lot of mathematics to note down and evaluate their findings , but it is the measuring which they are into. In the same way the traditional mathematician has been some one who sits on his own mental cloud and tries to figure out the square root of the nth. Series of fibonacci numbers just for the fun of it. In recent times mathematicians have been playing a bigger and more important role in physics and quite frankly the result has been something of a mess , for one thing there are definitely areas in which pure mathematical theories have come into conflict with established classical findings. The point that I am making is that Steve might well have a valid point in what he is saying and that his remarks are worthy of more attention and sensible discussion.

 

[jcsd]

Bollocks McQueen, as people here may know well that I have studied physics and history at university and I'm sorry but crack-pottery is crack-pottery and there is too much of it on this forum, and in this case Godwin's law applies.


Ignorance is no defence.

 

[NeutronStar]

Hi everyone. This is my first post to these forums. I have read several threads including this one in it's entirety.

I just want to say that I agree wholeheartedly with Arc_Central about the mathematics.

I mean, don’t get me wrong. I believe that it is very important to learn and understand the math. But if a mathematician can't put his conclusions into English then I highly question whether he truly understands his conclusions at all.

Mathematics is a highly symbolic language, but all of those symbols mean something. And just as E = mc^2 can be translated into English as "Matter and Energy are interchangeable" so can every other mathematical statement.

I am anxious to learn the math of quantum physics for the main purpose of translating that information into English.

There are some truths that must be brought out here:

1. No one truly understands quantum mechanics (mathematically or otherwise)

If they did they wouldn't be on an Internet forum arguing about it, they would be accepting the Nobel Prize for their insight.

2. Anything mathematical can indeed be translated into English. If it can't be, then it is incompressible even to the mathematician who are trying to understand it. Just because a formula gives the correct numerical results doesn't automatically mean that the mathematician understands why. And if they don't understand it they why don't they just say so instead of hiding behind the flimsy excuse that it can't be put into English.

While it may be true that multidimensional spaces may be hard to visualize, they can still be discusses with amazing insight using plain English.

I often hear physics professors telling me that we can't comprehend imaginary components. They aren't 'real' so we shouldn't think of them that way. That is total nonsense. Electric and magnetic theory has taught us otherwise. Imaginary components are not only real, but they can be comprehended perfectly well.

In much the same way quantum physicists claim that the traveling waves that make up a packet should not be thought of as real. Well, if they are part of the mathematics needed to describe the particle then why shouldn't they be considered real? Simply because they must travel faster than c which is forbidden? That's not good enough for me.

If they are needed for the theory then they are part of it. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Yes, I do believe that the mathematics is the way to go. And I'm attempting to head off in that direction. But like Arc_Central I don't buy it when mathematicians claim that they can't put things into English. This just says to me that they really don't understand the math themselves. Like I say, no one understands quantum mechanics. All they can do is calculate probabilities. Big deal. That doesn't help one iota toward understanding what they heck is going on.

I'm currently studying Liboff's "Introductory to Quantum Mechanics". I'm just getting started, and I have a long way to go in differential calculus as well. But up to this point I haven't found anything mathematical that I can't put into English. And I am just dying to learn something mathematical that I can't put into English. Because when I reach that point I guarantee you that I will find a way to explain it in simple English. Either that, or I'll have to openly admit that I genuinely don't understand the mathematics.

Probabilities don't count by the way. There's simply nothing there to translate into English. There's no enlightenment there to be translated. Mathematicians that can do super fantastic probabilities don't understand anything more than anyone else. There's no understanding to be had from probabilities. All that can be had from that are the numerical predictions to experiments. That's hardly an understanding of anything. They can say what might happen, but they can't say why it might happen, other than to point to the mathematics of probabilities and say, "It can't be translated into English". Well, big deal. There's nothing there to translate. It's just a probability. In fact, that *is* the English translation, "It's just a probability", period amen. Translation complete. The mathematician doesn't know anymore than anyone else.

 

[McQueen]

Originally posted by jcsd
Bollocks McQueen, as people here may know well that I have studied physics and history at university and I'm sorry but crack-pottery is crack-pottery and there is too much of it on this forum, and in this case Godwin's law applies.


Ignorance is no defence.

This is the point that I am trying to make. Just because you have studied Physics doesn’t mean you are right in your conception of how some one else views the same subject. Physics is anything but a perfect science , as you should know. For instance take the theory of electromagnetism , Maxwell , formulated his equations and predicted the existence of electromagnetic radiation four years before they were found , eighty years before an electron was properly measured and more than a hundred years before the atom was split . Can anyone really say , with the kind of absolute certainty that you obviously seem to entertain , that he even knew what he was talking about . It is a basic tenet of physics , like it or not , that the more you know about a subject the more accurate will be your understanding of it. By these standards where does Maxwell stand. Using Maxwell’s theories of electromagnetism , Feynman , Diriac and others built up their own theories of electromagnetism , using QED (quantum electrodynamics ) . The point here is , isn’t there a possibility , however small , in all this of an error being made somewhere along the line. You talk of mathematics. Yet for mathematicians 0/0 makes sense , which we obviously know to be untrue , but is nevertheless an abstraction which makes sense to mathematicians. Let me also state here that greater minds than our own have been able to say that they were wrong . Newton for instance first started out with his particle (corpuscular ) theory of light , when experiments of the day showed that light exhibited the properties of waves he was able to accept the fact. The fact that he was eventually proved to be partly ( according to the accepted theories ) right , makes no difference. For two thousand years before Newton , scientists believed that the natural tendency of an object was to stop moving once the force moving it was brought to zero. Newton turned the world upside down when he suggested that in fact the natural tendency of an object was to keep moving until some external force came into play which altered its course or brought it to a stop. With extreme mathematical abstractions taking the place of observed or observable criteria , a small margin of error can lead to a huge divergence from the situation as it actually is. Is this acceptable and to what extent ?